Baptism and Church Membership
Justin Taylor agrees with Al Mohler on the necessity of believer's baptism as a prerequisite for church membership. (I'm setting aside the issue of the Lord's Supper for now.)
Both reference a withdrawn proposal by the Elders at Bethlehem Baptist Church (BBC). The issue is: Should churches whose elders already lean towards a baptistic position (i.e., baptist churches) require believers baptism for membership?
To get a handle on the topic, here are three statements I think both sides would agree upon:
1. Membership in a local church is very important for all Christians.
2. Churches need to elevate membership to the proper place it deserves. The withdrawn BBC proposal is an attempt to do this.
3. Including someone into membership at a church constitutes a public proclamation that the leadership has no credible grounds to doubt that the individual is regenerate.
Now the question we're struggling over is: Which priorities should be upheld by our ecclesiology?
1. Professing Christians being members of local churches (possibly paedobaptist churches, should they so choose).
2. Professing Christians who attend a particular baptist church (or might someday attend a particular baptist church) being able to become members at that baptist church.
3. Professing Christians being baptized on the basis of a Scripturally-informed conscience (in other words, being baptized as believers).
I would rank them in this order of importance: 3,1,2. The BBC proposal seems to rank them: 2,3,1.
An autobiographical note: Though my name is on the withdrawn BBC proposal, I do not (now) support the proposal. In July of 2005, I had the honor of being asked to provide editorial assistance to John Piper, a pastor for whom my love and respect is beyond estimation. Due to my high esteem for Pastor John, I agreed, though I had not yet given thought to the weighty matters involved. In early October 2005, after the proposal had been approved by the BBC elders, I came to disagree with it, given the priorities I highlighted above. I regret that I came to such convictions so late and so slowly in the process, and am grateful to dear friends on both sides of this issue for the time they've invested discussing these matters with me. As an apprentice in The Bethlehem Institute, I have undying respect and admiration for Pastors John Piper and Tom Steller. I am grateful for their partnership in the gospel and their love for truth. Because of their graciousness, we are able to disagree without rancor or insecurity (as Dr. Mohler also notes). The BBC Elders withdrew the proposal in December 2005.
A few other resources:
Russell Moore has a good article on this topic. (page 9)
And there is an outstanding discussion between Mark Dever, Lig Duncan (a Presbyterian), C.J. Mahaney, and Al Mohler on cooperation between churches. It was available on CD at Together for the Gospel, but I cannot find it on the Nine Marks website at this time.
Comments
Alex, I have a serious question. How biblical is church membership?
It may be an accepted part of evangelical practice and culture, it may be a holy shibboleth that cannot be questioned. But is it actually biblical? So much churchy baggage accumulates around it ...
I was baptised by immersion at the age of 16. I'm all for believer's baptism, it is a wonderfully rich symbolic act. Quite a few years later, I was confirmed in the Church of England (in which I am licensed as a lay minister). Although I still prefer credo-baptism, from a doctrinal POV, I don't object to paedobaptism when the parents are believing Christians.
I have enormous respect for the Baptist tradition but I don't believe that Baptist churches should insist on re-baptism for people wanting to become members. There is but one baptism, irrespective of whether the baptism involves sprinkling or immersion, and I believe we should honour that and respect our fellowship in Christ.
As for church membership proving that someone is regenerate, I have known professing Christians who later wrecked their marriages and fell into terrible sexual sin. Baptism is a holy command, sure, but it is no guarantee of sanctification, any more than church membership is.
I'm not disputing that the New Testament pattern of spirituality is that we should be faithful and committed to the local body of believers.
But I often think that nonconformist churches can sometimes be as legalistic in their membership requirements as the Anglican church!
Your post got me thinking, is all. :)
(I'm sorry, I have not had time to read the article you linked to.)
Posted by: Philippa | July 5, 2006 08:21 AM
I don't know if you've found the discussion on cooperation between churches yet but in case you haven't here is the link: http://resources.christianity.com/details/mrki/20051222/b60a385f-1f83-4369-b5c2-1a0ba5f4c595.aspx
You'll find it on the 9Marks website under the audio section.
Posted by: Georges Larabie | July 7, 2006 01:23 PM
Philippa,
One argument for church membership is that it is a way for an individual to inform the Elders of a particular church that his or her soul is coming under their care. Heb 13:17 says leaders must give an account for those in their flock. The question is: Who is "the flock"? Those who show up once a month? Those who come with regularity but have never stated a commitment? Some say that church membership is not found in the Bible. In a sense, that is true. But everyone knew in Phillip or Ephesus who was in the church in that city and who wasn't. In our modern culture, where there is often a multiplicy of churches, some way is needed for Elders to know who is under their care.
As to your question about baptism, the question is whether paedobaptism truly is baptism. If it is not, then they are not being "rebaptized." This is separate from the issue of the mode of baptism, where it seems more toleration is possible. The issue is: Have persons obeyed the Lord's command to repent and be baptized?
Lastly, church membership does not prove someone is regenerate. Rather, Elders are supposed to do the best job they can to ensure that when they admit someone to memebership, that person is regenerate. But Elders are not infallible. The goal is to guard the purity of the church as much as humanly possible. You are correct that neither baptism nor church membership assure one is regenerate.
BTW, I am not aware as aware of denominations in England.
Blessings,
Alex
Posted by: Alex Chediak | July 10, 2006 12:27 AM
Georges, thanks for the link.
Alex, I have been on holiday, so am late in responding. I agree with everything you say. In a fallen world and an imperfect church, the model of eldership as practised by Baptist and other churches strikes me as being pretty close to the New Testament model.
Accountability and commitment in a Christian community are vitally important.
I have Anglican reformed friends who see no need to be rebaptised. And some of them would, I guess, subscribe to covenant theology.
If I ever have children of my own -somewhat unlikely now - I would prefer to bring them up in the faith to be baptised when they make a public declaration of their faith in Christ. The Church of England has for some years now allowed couples to dedicate their new babies and young children to the Lord in a thanksgiving service, similar to the practice of free churches. :)
Posted by: Philippa | July 20, 2006 10:00 AM